Abstract
Background
Higher hospital and surgeon volumes have been associated with improved outcomes after hepatic resection. Subspecialty training has not previously been associated with improved outcomes after hepatic resection. The objective of this study was to determine what effects, if any, surgeon’s volume and training had on the outcomes after hepatic resection.
Methods
Administrative procedure codes were used to identify all adult patients from the fiscal year 1991–1992 to 2003–2004 who underwent a hepatic resection in two large urban health regions in Canada (Calgary and Capital health regions). The primary outcomes were operative mortality and postoperative complications.
Results
There were 1107 hepatic resections in the stated time period performed by a total of 72 surgeons. There were 66 deaths, resulting in an in-hospital mortality rate of 6.0%, and an overall complication rate of 46%. Statistically significant predictors of operative mortality were: urgency of admission, diagnosis of primary hepatic malignancy, extent of resection, and increasing burden of comorbid medical illness. Surgeon training along with patient’s sex, the urgency of admission, diagnosis of primary hepatic malignancy, extent of resection, and increasing comorbidity were predictive of postoperative complications.
Conclusions
This study found surgeon training to be highly predictive of postoperative complications after hepatic resection.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Foster JH, Berman MM. Solid liver tumors. Major Probl Clin Surg 1977;22:1–342.
Savage AP, Malt RA. Elective and emergency hepatic resection. Determinants of operative mortality and morbidity. Ann Surg 1991;214:689–95.
Bozzetti F, Gennari L, Regalia E, et al. Morbidity and mortality after surgical resection of liver tumors. Analysis of 229 cases. Hepatogastroenterology 1992;39:237–41.
Jarnagin WR, Gonen M, Fong Y, et al. Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg 2002;236:397–406.
Belghiti J, Hiramatsu K, Benoist S, et al. Seven hundred forty-seven hepatectomies in the 1990s: an update to evaluate the actual risk of liver resection. J Am Coll Surg 2000;191:38–46.
Cherqui D, Alon R, Lauzet JY, et al. Limitation of blood transfusions during hepatectomies. Study of 150 consecutive hepatic resections on healthy and pathological livers. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1996;20:132–8.
Brancatisano R, Isla A, Habib N. Is radical hepatic surgery safe? Am J Surg 1998;175:161–3.
Mullen JT, Ribero D, Reddy SK, et al. Hepatic insufficiency and mortality in 1,059 noncirrhotic patients undergoing major hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:854–62.
Abdalla EK, Adam R, Bilchik AJ, et al. Improving resectability of hepatic colorectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1271–80.
Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1128–37.
Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Cowan JA, et al. National trends in the use and outcomes of hepatic resection. J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:31–8.
Porter GA, Soskolne CL, Yakimets WW, et al. Surgeon-related factors and outcome in rectal cancer. Ann Surg 1998;227:157–67.
Prystowsky JB, Bordage G, Feinglass JM. Patient outcomes for segmental colon resection according to surgeon’s training, certification, and experience. Surgery 2002;132:663–70.
Dorrance HR, Docherty GM, O’Dwyer PJ. Effect of surgeon specialty interest on patient outcome after potentially curative colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2000;43:492–8.
Holm T, Johansson H, Cedermark B, et al. Influence of hospital- and surgeon-related factors on outcome after treatment of rectal cancer with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Br J Surg 1997;84:657–63.
Golledge J, Wiggins JE, Callam MJ. Effect of surgical subspecialization on breast cancer outcome. Br J Surg 2000;87:1420–5.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83.
Shirabe K, Shimada M, Gion T, et al. Postoperative liver failure after major hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the modern era with special reference to remnant liver volume. J Am Coll Surg 1999;188:304–9.
Rosser CJ, Kamat AM, Pendleton J, et al. Impact of fellowship training on pathologic outcomes and complication rates of radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2006;107:54–9.
Simunovic M, Rempel E, Theriault ME, et al. Influence of hospital characteristics on operative death and survival of patients after major cancer surgery in Ontario. Can J Surg 2006;49:251–8.
Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Goldfaden A, et al. Volume and process of care in high-risk cancer surgery. Cancer 2006;106:2476–81.
Choti MA, Bowman HM, Pitt HA, et al. Should hepatic resections be performed at high-volume referral centers? J Gastrointest Surg 1998;2:11–20.
Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Knol JA, et al. Hepatic resection in the United States: indications, outcomes, and hospital procedural volumes from a nationally representative database. Arch Surg 2003;138:185–91.
Birkmeyer NJ, Goodney PP, Stukel TA, et al. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer 2005;103:435–41.
Urbach DR, Baxter NN. Does it matter what a hospital is high volume for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. BMJ 2004;328:737–40.
Ghali WA, Hall RE, Ash AS, et al. Evaluation of complication rates after coronary artery bypass surgery using administrative data. Methods Inf Med 1998;37:192–200.
Derrow AE, Seeger JM, Dame DA, et al. The outcome in the United States after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair, renal artery bypass, and mesenteric revascularization. J Vasc Surg 2001;34:54–61.
Huber TS, Wang JG, Derrow AE, et al. Experience in the United States with intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2001;33:304–10.
Feinglass J, Amir H, Taylor P, et al. How safe is primary knee replacement surgery? Perioperative complication rates in Northern Illinois, 1993–1999. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:110–6.
Taub DA, Hollenbeck BK, Wei JT, et al. Complications following surgical intervention for stress urinary incontinence: a national perspective. Neurourol Urodyn 2005;24:659–65.
Anger JT, Litwin MS, Wang Q, et al. Complications of sling surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:707–14.
Zingmond D, Maggard M, O’Connell J, et al. What predicts serious complications in colorectal cancer resection? Am Surg 2003;69:969–74.
Glasgow RE, Mulvihill SJ. Hospital volume influences outcome in patients undergoing pancreatic resection for cancer. West J Med 1996;165:294–300.
Romano PS, Schembri ME, Rainwater JA. Can administrative data be used to ascertain clinically significant postoperative complications? Am J Med Qual 2002;17:145–54.
Lawthers AG, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, et al. Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data. Is it valid? Med Care 2000;38:785–95.
Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, et al. Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Med Care 2000;38:796–806.
Urbach DR, Austin PC. Conventional models overestimate the statistical significance of volume-outcome associations, compared with multilevel models. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:391–400.
Acknowledgments
E.D. is a population health investigator with the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) and is supported by a New Investigator grant from the Canadian Institute for Health Research. Also supported by an Establishment Grant from the AHFMR and a grant from the Center for the Advancement of Health in Calgary, Alberta. W.G. is supported by a Health Senior Scholar grant from the AHFMR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McKay, A., You, I., Bigam, D. et al. Impact of Surgeon Training on Outcomes After Resective Hepatic Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 15, 1348–1355 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9838-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-9838-9